A post on SideQuesting takes issue with the Terms of Service for beta testers of SimCity, the upcoming continuation of Maxis' urban planning series (thanks Joao). It seems EA is taking a zero-tolerance policy towards those who knowingly abuse bugs to the extent that users who fail to report bugs are threatened with loss of access to "all EA products," not just this beta. It seems apparent this will only apply to those who actually exploit unreported bugs, as this would be their only way of knowing who is aware of them. Here is the clause in question:

“It is understood and agreed that, as part of your participation in the Beta Program, it is your responsibility to report all known bugs, abuse of ‘bugs’, ‘undocumented features’ or other defects and problems related to the Game and Beta Software to EA as soon as they are found (“Bugs”). If you know about a Bug or have heard about a Bug and fail to report the Bug to EA, we reserve the right to treat you no differently from someone who abuses the Bug. You acknowledge that EA reserve the right to lock anyone caught abusing a Bug out of all EA products.”

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 20, 2013, 18:17:Hehe, I browsed the list, found I know all of the (windows) ones.. how sad. I wish there was a proper (science fiction) space and planetary base simulation. Like.. ehm what was it called... Startopia? Just much larger in scale.

There's that prototype that doublefine just finished making. Push for that to become a full game

entr0py wrote on Jan 20, 2013, 18:37:Seems like whoever wrote those terms was afraid of bad publicity caused by exploits before release. And they're right to be; one consequence of making the game online only is that customers will get irritated by cheats and hacks.

But actually following through with a universal ban for screwing around in a beta test would cause far more bad press then it prevents. I think it's an empty threat.

Well if you are willing to take that chance with your main origin account, go for it. I'd much rather create and use another account.

Stormsinger wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 22:23:Seriously...it's attacks against the posters I'm talking about. I can't imagine why you think it's okay to be nasty to someone just because they have a different opinion than yours, but whatever.

Congratulations on being the biggest fucking douchebag drama queen we've seen around here in quite awhile. You can't imagine why you think it's okay to attack other posters for a different opinion, yet a simple click on your history reveals you doing the EXACT SAME FUCKING THING you're now lambasting others for. Is it cold up on that ivory tower of yours?

After almost six years, you guys win, I'm outta here.

Yay, we won! It was a hard-fought battle, guys, but we finally did it! Good work all around, beers on me tonight.

Stormsinger wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 22:23:Seriously...it's attacks against the posters I'm talking about. I can't imagine why you think it's okay to be nasty to someone just because they have a different opinion than yours, but whatever.

After almost six years, you guys win, I'm outta here.

What exactly are you referring to here?

People tend to do this on Blues, listen to a troll and then post as if his opinions reflect the entire website. There isn't a groupthink here, we don't all agree and do the same things because some random person does. Sometimes I think people go too far with personal attacks (I've lost my temper once or twice too) but I still find plenty of normal interaction and discussion here. It's pretty much like any other forum on the internet except that the moderation tends to be more passive and based on reporting than usual. Other forums I frequent enforce guidelines with day to day moderators who also participate, personally I prefer that approach but its not my site.

Stormsinger wrote on Jan 21, 2013, 22:46:I can't imagine how I ever got the idea that these forums have been getting toxic lately.

Feel free to raise the thread to your level of genius, champ.

Prez wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 00:38:Jesus, you'd have to be the thinnest skinned person here to consider this thread "toxic". It isn't like a company threatening its beta testers who are performing a service for them with losing access to all the games that they paid for simply for failing to report a bug in one game isn't grounds for some pretty righteous anger.

Seriously...it's attacks against the posters I'm talking about. I can't imagine why you think it's okay to be nasty to someone just because they have a different opinion than yours, but whatever.

Jesus, you'd have to be the thinnest skinned person here to consider this thread "toxic". It isn't like a company threatening its beta testers who are performing a service for them with losing access to all the games that they paid for simply for failing to report a bug in one game isn't grounds for some pretty righteous anger.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Satoru wrote on Jan 21, 2013, 13:05:My point was that people think EULA are illegal. They are not as they are contracts. Specific provisions may be unenforceable depending on the clause or local law, but even that in no way makes them "illegal". People need to get it into their brains that EULA are contracts an are enforceable world wide.

I know what you were saying, I just have no idea why you are quibbling about the terminology applied when you understand perfectly well what they meant. Just because someone enters into a contract does not mean the terms are always binding. It really depends too much on the details to make generalizations IMHO.

If EA kills your account because they have proof that You withheld a bug during the beta, then you have no recourse. There is nothing illegal about it. Even if proving it would be quite difficult.

If the products depend on access to the account and there is no refund or recourse then I can see a lawsuit challenging that sort of provision happening and I could see merit in it but again, it depends on where its being challenged.

Satoru wrote on Jan 21, 2013, 09:56:EULA are 100% legal in all countries it is a legal contract.

Unless you can point to a specific provision and to what local law it violates they are legal. No matter what you think they are legal and enforceable.

You can put whatever you want into an EULA, it doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny and judgment. Saying something is 100% legal in all countries is an over generalization too.

My point was that people think EULA are illegal. They are not as they are contracts. Specific provisions may be unenforceable depending on the clause or local law, but even that in no way makes them "illegal". People need to get it into their brains that EULA are contracts an are enforceable world wide.

Almost nothing on any properly written EULA is unenforceable no matter what county you are in. This is how Xbox is able to obliterate your entire account if you put "Tutorial for 1800 MSP" in your profile.

If EA kills your account because they have proof that You withheld a bug during the beta, then you have no recourse. There is nothing illegal about it. Even if proving it would be quite difficult.

Unless you can point to a specific provision and to what local law it violates they are legal. No matter what you think they are legal and enforceable.

The clause appears to be designed such that cheat creators would be liable within the game. A cheat creator could release a cheat from a known bug but not cheat themselves. Thus never violating the EULA though ruining the game for everyone

That probably depends on which country you live in and/or which court you take it up with (I know the EA TOS states that you have to use the North Californian court system, but that clause is probably illegal in a bunch of places too).

It seems like there's absolutely no downside for companies like EA to put illegal, one-sided garbage into their EULAs.

It's illegal in Europe.

EA seem to have misunderstood the nature of the service that Beta Testers are proving.

That probably depends on which country you live in and/or which court you take it up with (I know the EA TOS states that you have to use the North Californian court system, but that clause is probably illegal in a bunch of places too).

It seems like there's absolutely no downside for companies like EA to put illegal, one-sided garbage into their EULAs.